Association Of Business Schools Research Articles

Management Education in the UK: The Roles of the British Academy of Management and the Association of Business Schools

This paper uses institutional theory to analyse the role of the British Academy of Management (BAM) and the Association of Business Schools (ABS) in gaining legitimacy for management education in the UK. By the 1980s, serious issues surrounding rigour and relevance were being asked about UK business schools that raised concerns about the legitimacy of management as a discipline. A major consequence was that management received relatively low research funding compared with other social science disciplines from key funding bodies, e.g. the Economic and Social Science Research Council. Using archival and interview data, we examine how BAM and ABS, as professional bodies, applied multiple approaches aimed at improving the quality of management research and teaching to gain legitimacy from influential external agencies. An unintended consequence of these actions has been an increasing isomorphism in management research and education in the UK. Although some of the original concerns still remain with regard to management education, both organizations have been successful in increasing the external perception of legitimacy.

Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: reactivity and the ABS list

The case for using academic journals lists is critically scrutinised. An effect of their use, it argued, is to stifle diversity and constrict scholarly innovation. A monoculture is fostered in which a preoccupation with shoehorning research into a form prized by elite, US-oriented journals overrides a concern to maintain and enrich the diversity of topics, the range of methods and the plurality of perspectives engaged in business and management research. Use of a particular journal list, such as the one prepared by the Association of Business Schools (ABS), can come to dominate the scholarly terrain of a particular discipline with consequences that can be damaging to funding as well as to research culture.

Journal List Fetishism and the Perversion of Scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS List

The case for using academic journals lists is critically scrutinised. An effect of their use, it argued, is to stifle diversity and constrict scholarly innovation. A monoculture is fostered in which a preoccupation with shoehorning research into a form prized by elite, US-oriented journals overrides a concern to maintain and enrich the diversity of topics, the range of methods and the plurality of perspectives engaged in business and management research. Use of a particular journal list, such as the one prepared by the Association of Business Schools (ABS), can come to dominate the scholarly terrain of a particular discipline with consequences that can be damaging to funding as well as to research culture.

Publication Records of Faculty Promoted to Professor: Evidence from the UK Accounting and Finance Academic Community

This study investigates the publication profiles of 140 accounting and finance faculty promoted to the senior rank of professor at UK and Irish universities during the period 1992 to 2007. On average, approximately 9 papers in Association of Business Schools (ABS) (2008)-listed journals, with 5 at the highest 3*/4* quality levels in a portfolio of 20 outputs are required for promotion to professor. Multivariate analysis provides evidence that publication requirements in terms of ABS ranked journal papers have increased over time, an effect attributed to the government research assessment exercise. There is no evidence that requirements differ for: internal versus external promotion, male versus female candidates; accounting versus finance professors, research intensity of institution peer group; or government research ranking of unit. There is also no evidence of a substitution effect in relation to increased recent publication history, quantity of non-ABS outputs or sole-authorship, all of which show a significant complementary effect. It is noted that there is very limited overlap in the UK and US publication journal sets, suggesting underlying geographically-based paradigm differences. The benchmarks provided in this study are informative in a range of decision settings: recruitment; those considering making an application for promotion to a chair and those involved in promotion panels; cross-disciplinary comparisons; and resource allocation. The evidence presented also contributes to the emerging policy debates concerning the aging demographic profile of accounting faculty, the management of academic labour and the Research Excellence Framework.

University Business Schools 2 Business

There is a substantial and growing body of evidence to suggest that organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of individual and group learning and knowledge management as ways of attaining competitive advantage (Thomson et al, 2001). A consequence of this phenomenon is the growing demand for management education and training, and this is increasingly linked with the imperative of integrating management development with other organizational systems and processes to ensure their effectiveness in delivering business goals. This paper analyses this trend from the perspective of a ‘new university’ business school (‘new universities’ are the post-1992 universities in the UK, created by the demise of the polytechnics and their subsequent transfer to university status). The authors suggest and identify potential market development opportunities and highlight the competencies required by business schools if they are to compete successfully in this potentially profitable, yet increasingly competitive market. The significance of the corporate education market should not be underestimated. The UK Association of Business Schools (1997) estimated that this kind of activity accounted for up to two-thirds of the programmes offered by its members in their provision.

University business schools 2 business: the changing dynamics of the corporate education market

Abstract There is a substantial and growing body of evidence to suggest that organizations are increasingly recognising the importance of individual and group learning and knowledge management as ways of attaining competitive advantage. A consequence of this phenomenon is the growing demand for management education and training and increasingly, this is linked with the imperative of integrating management development with other organizational systems and processes to ensure their effectiveness in delivering business goals. The purpose of this paper is to analyse this trend from the perspective of a New University Business School, i.e. one of the post 1992 Universities, created by the demise of the Polytechnics and their subsequent transfer to university status. One of the principal aims of the paper is to suggest and identify potential market development opportunities and to highlight the competences required by business schools to successfully compete is this potentially profitable, yet increasingly competitive market. The significance of the corporate education market should not be underestimated. As an example, the Association of Business Schools (1997) estimated that this type of activity accounted for up to two‐thirds of the programmes offered by its members in their provision. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Response to the QAA consultation paper on the quality assurance and standards framework for UK higher education

Following the fundamental review by the Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, under the Chairmanship of Sir Ron, (now Lord) Dearing, in July, 1997 (and Scottish equivalent under Sir Ron Garrick); the Quality Assurance Agency for higher education (QAA), is currently consulting on the detailed elaboration of those Committees’ main recommendations. The QAA proposals are designed to provide public assurance on both the quality and standards in higher education and comprise an inter‐related set of components under the following headings: the development of a complete and overarching framework of qualifications for the UK; the development of a national template for individual programme specifications; the development of benchmarking information and threshold standards across 41 subject areas; the development of institutional codes of practice and institutional reviews; and the strengthening of the existing external examiner system to encompass a formal role of feedback on quality and standards to the QAA. The paper was submitted by the Association of Business schools to the QAA, in the format specified by the QAA. It can therefore best be understood in conjunction with the QAA’s consultation paper “An agenda for quality”, which provides greater detail of the main components, set out above.